Author
Topic: Is it acceptable that 1 out of 5 copies of the 24-70mm II are really great? (Read 9396 times)

People, I think we're getting off topic here. It doesn't matter a bit whether 4 lenses or 5 lenses had to be tested to find a really good one - either percentage (only 20% excellent or only 25% excellent) is completely unacceptable from a major manufacturer such as Canon.

People, I think we're getting off topic here. It doesn't matter a bit whether 4 lenses or 5 lenses had to be tested to find a really good one - either percentage (only 20% excellent or only 25% excellent) is completely unacceptable from a major manufacturer such as Canon.

We are trying to determine exactly what the information is that he is referring to. He says he has information that has not been posted. There is nothing on the site that says one of five or even one of four was the only good ones. A poster who refers to another blog should be able to back up his claim. The article was updated yesterday, and only describes issues with two lenses, so if there were five, what about the other three?We would like to see the post that Bryan made saying 4 of the five were defective.

I ran THIS version (a rental from LensRental) through FoCal last week, and it required a +2W/+3T AFMA, then took it to my next assignment. Of note, I rarely use my 24-70 Mark I for sports because even with AFMA, it was never 'sharp' enough for enlargements.

After using this Mark II lens for 2 hrs, I was having lens envy again and was bummed I had to send it back. Then I got an email from Amazon it was available - so I ordered and received it yesterday. For one night I had both copies.No copy-copy variation that I could tell, but because the first was a rental I didn't save my original FoCal files - stupid me.Then (really stupid me), I got another email that my 'preordered' lens from B&H shipped - oops, forgot to cancel that. Now I have two copies to compare, and one to return. I'll be spending time in my basement with FoCal, and I'll also be out and about for few days doing a direct comparison. I'll post the FoCal reports and some other test shots for these lenses on all my bodies (7d/5d/1DIV and 1Dx). While I may not be as thorough or scientific, I'll share the images from all 3 to let you know 'just another fotog's opinion'

I also am not happy with Canon for seemingly having such low quality control out of the factory. It's fine that when I buy a $500 lens that there may be variations, but a $2000+ lens? The problems gets aggrevated when I read all the comments of people ordering two or more for comparison. That means, me, who doesn't have the means for exact measuring, will end up with the lowest performing lenses from Amazon, B&H and Adorama which were returned after being sorted out as the lowest performing samples. Canon should not put me in that position of doubting the $2000+ product I'm thinking of purchasing. I will keep my version I for now and wait...

I ran THIS version (a rental from LensRental) through FoCal last week, and it required a +2W/+3T AFMA, then took it to my next assignment. Of note, I rarely use my 24-70 Mark I for sports because even with AFMA, it was never 'sharp' enough for enlargements.

After using this Mark II lens for 2 hrs, I was having lens envy again and was bummed I had to send it back. Then I got an email from Amazon it was available - so I ordered and received it yesterday. For one night I had both copies.No copy-copy variation that I could tell, but because the first was a rental I didn't save my original FoCal files - stupid me.Then (really stupid me), I got another email that my 'preordered' lens from B&H shipped - oops, forgot to cancel that. Now I have two copies to compare, and one to return. I'll be spending time in my basement with FoCal, and I'll also be out and about for few days doing a direct comparison. I'll post the FoCal reports and some other test shots for these lenses on all my bodies (7d/5d/1DIV and 1Dx). While I may not be as thorough or scientific, I'll share the images from all 3 to let you know 'just another fotog's opinion'

REALLY? A Scientific test? I don't think there's any room for that kind of messing around on this thread.

Some guy said that 4 out of 5 were bad enough to try and generate hits on a website. This is not just ANY guy, this is SOME guy.

If a problem is there, we're going to hear about it from Roger at LensRentals soon enough just from broad base sampling and experience.

So...what people are saying is there may be some manufacturing variations that result in some lenses being slightly less awesome than another one? On a brand new lens with brand new elements. So maybe it's a good thing I can't afford this now, by the time I buy one they likely will have worked out any minor manufacturing issues.

So...what people are saying is there may be some manufacturing variations that result in some lenses being slightly less awesome than another one? On a brand new lens with brand new elements. So maybe it's a good thing I can't afford this now, by the time I buy one they likely will have worked out any minor manufacturing issues.

I guess that's why some people are upset. This lens is supposed to be a production ready model. It's not supposed to be in field testing, beta testing or any other kind of testing for that matter.

this is such a mountain out of a mole hill, 4 (or 5) samples aren't enough to draw any real conclusions. If Lens rentals was saying it and they had 40 copies then maybe. If you're really that worried about sample variation (again read roger's comments regarding the "this lens is soft" phenomenon) just buy from a quality retailer: BH, Adorama, et al. and send it back for a new one if you aren't happy. For the record the one I rented for the weekend was fantastic.

I ran THIS version (a rental from LensRental) through FoCal last week, and it required a +2W/+3T AFMA, then took it to my next assignment. Of note, I rarely use my 24-70 Mark I for sports because even with AFMA, it was never 'sharp' enough for enlargements.

After using this Mark II lens for 2 hrs, I was having lens envy again and was bummed I had to send it back. Then I got an email from Amazon it was available - so I ordered and received it yesterday. For one night I had both copies.No copy-copy variation that I could tell, but because the first was a rental I didn't save my original FoCal files - stupid me.Then (really stupid me), I got another email that my 'preordered' lens from B&H shipped - oops, forgot to cancel that. Now I have two copies to compare, and one to return. I'll be spending time in my basement with FoCal, and I'll also be out and about for few days doing a direct comparison. I'll post the FoCal reports and some other test shots for these lenses on all my bodies (7d/5d/1DIV and 1Dx). While I may not be as thorough or scientific, I'll share the images from all 3 to let you know 'just another fotog's opinion'

i am sorry about being off the topic, but i do have a question for you as if you would like to share? i wonder as if you have increased/decreased exposure or brightness for this image? i am learning about light and trying to come up with my own way of estimating exposure. my existing exposure estimation for this shot would be iso 800 - f/4 - 1/125-250 (between)... converting to your settings would be about 2 stops or 1 stop brighter, accordingly; therefore, i am asking for your help in figuring out how to use light. and again, i am trying to learn how to estimate an exposure, please do not think of something else

So...what people are saying is there may be some manufacturing variations that result in some lenses being slightly less awesome than another one? On a brand new lens with brand new elements. So maybe it's a good thing I can't afford this now, by the time I buy one they likely will have worked out any minor manufacturing issues.

I guess that's why some people are upset. This lens is supposed to be a production ready model. It's not supposed to be in field testing, beta testing or any other kind of testing for that matter.

Who said it's not production ready? Is it that some are only really good instead of great? Or is it that there is real, tangible issues with a very large percentage of ALL lenses that have been delivered. Not just to one or two review sites getting a handful of lenses. I'm talking a large enough sample to be statistically significant. For example, LensRentals getting 100 lenses with a variety of serial numbers (presuming they aren't all from the same batch, etc) and him saying that there's 20 or 30 of them that are really noticeably off that doesn't get fixed with micro-adjust.

As to prior poster's exposure questions, here is a screen shot of my adjustments in LR, and here is a link to the original .CR2 file so you can play with it yourself, in whatever PP software you use. What did not show in the screen shot was sharpening up to 100, noise luminance reduction at 65 and Camera Faithful. No lens profile yet for the Mark II in LR 4.2.

I find that I with the 1Dx I can pull shadows/brighten quite a bit at lower ISO's (up to 8000-10,000) for websites.

As for choosing exposure settings, I'll shoot RAW, manually, with MY desired Tv / Av settings and spot meter with autoISO. Some gyms I can use Tv mode, but with crazy flourescent / halogen combo's in most of the high schools I shoot, I find my results are better if I do it myself. When i remember, I'll shoot a white balance card at the start and at the end and save that WB as a template to apply, independent of other custom templates I have created.

Sorry for getting off thread again, but wanted to answer the question...

As to prior poster's exposure questions, here is a screen shot of my adjustments in LR, and here is a link to the original .CR2 file so you can play with it yourself, in whatever PP software you use. What did not show in the screen shot was sharpening up to 100, noise luminance reduction at 65 and Camera Faithful. No lens profile yet for the Mark II in LR 4.2.

I find that I with the 1Dx I can pull shadows/brighten quite a bit at lower ISO's (up to 8000-10,000) for websites.

As for choosing exposure settings, I'll shoot RAW, manually, with MY desired Tv / Av settings and spot meter with autoISO. Some gyms I can use Tv mode, but with crazy flourescent / halogen combo's in most of the high schools I shoot, I find my results are better if I do it myself. When i remember, I'll shoot a white balance card at the start and at the end and save that WB as a template to apply, independent of other custom templates I have created.

Sorry for getting off thread again, but wanted to answer the question...